SENS Southport to send one staff to help Goya on Sunday, so both shops would have 4 FOH staff. She believe she made the right decision as Goya is normally busier than SENS and average sales is also higher than SENS Southport. Kristen wouldn't agree with her decision as she thought SENS need at least 5 FOH staff for busy weekend. As a result, there was some argument and conflict in their group chat.
On 13/03, Sunday, Phoebe asks Southport shop manager, Dream, to have a chat with Kristen, and to notify her that she was dismissed with two weeks notice.
Week after, I believe its Sunday 20/03, After Phoebe reported me the situation. Phoebe came to the shop and had a direct chat with Kristen.
According to my understanding, as I was verbally told by Phoebe, Kristen was supposed to be back at work after the two weeks paid leave.
I have attached the payment receipt for the annual leave period.
According to the information I have, the whole process and conversation between Kristen and us, is not harsh and we offered two weeks paid leave with good faith and expecting her would back after that.
This is all I know in regarding to this matter. Unfortunately, I have no further information or evidence to support this issue as I never got involved directly."
[44] Attached with this material were payment summaries indicating that the Applicant had been paid an amount of $867.00 on 22 March 2022, $905.00 on 29 March 2022, and $777.25 on 4 April 2022. Mr Chen also attached a document headed 'Leave Request' submitted on 20 March 2022 from 'Kristen' for the period 23/4/22 to 7/4/22.
Conclusion on whether the Applicant was dismissed
[45] The Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant was not dismissed. Accordingly, I must first determine whether the Applicant was indeed dismissed.
[46] I am satisfied that the Applicant's casual role was terminated on 13 March 2022 by way of the meeting with Dream Nareekul and 'John'. Casual employees are not entitled to notice and the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Applicant was dismissed with notice as the Respondent has submitted in its written material. As the Respondent elected not to participate in the hearing there is no evidence to support this submission. The evidence of the Applicant contradicts this claim. I am more inclined to regard the casual employment that occurred from 14 to 23 March 2022 after the communication of the Applicant's termination, as the Applicant being engaged to work on another casual contract until Dream Nareekul returned from Sydney on 23 March.
[47] I am also satisfied that the evidence concerning the meeting on 20 March 2022 arranged by Ms Wang on behalf of the Respondent affirms the fact of the dismissal occurring on 13 March 2022.
